Democrats and Republicans agree on stuff. Be afraid.

[Jesda]

The bailout reminds me of the Patriot Act. In crisis mode, Democrats and Republicans freak out and agree on one thing only: MORE GOVERNMENT.

From Ron Paul's latest mass e-mail:

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Not everyone deserves a house. Not everyone should be allowed to finance a car. Not all people are eligible for large loans.

Clinton pushed home ownership while Greenspan knew cheap and easy credit would create long term problems. Greenspan sat on his thumbs anyway, enjoying his celebrity status.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are running this nation like a short-term African regime, printing more and more worthless money.

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments - investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

I've been following Ron Paul for years, and I watched him on C-SPAN a decade ago (I didn't do any partying in high school) debating with Alan Greenspan, asking about our trainwreck of a monetary system, warning of the consequences of cheap money and easy credit.

Well, here we are, on the brink of a collapse caused by government. And to solve the problem, we're asking for MORE GOVERNMENT.

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. --Ronald Reagan, 1981

[audtatious]

No arguments from me on that.....

[HashiriyaS14]

In the long run, hopefully, the value of tens of millions of American mortgages is not zero, and thus unlike when they simply hand over funds in a true bailout, the US government will be left holding a pool of debt that is actually worth something. It's an acquisition, not a bailout. It would seem that the dilution of the dollar required to engineer this acquisition will indeed raise inflation, but inflation was rising at a pretty scary clip as-is. Sooner or later, you've got to innoculate the financial institutions, publicly or privately, and get all those loans off their balance sheets. The government is in the rare position to be able to do this without taking a bath on it, and they stand a real chance of making a profit.

At least on the AIG "bailout", it would be a no-brainer to borrow money rather than dilute the dollar, even if we had to pay 6% on them, the government is getting near a 12% pref. A 6% spread is pretty thick indeed.

I'm generally very pro-small government, but in this case, it seems like such a good deal for the taxpayers that I'm hesitant to harp on it too heavily. It's not often that we, the taxpayers, get to pool together and buy up tons of assets near the bottom of a market. We might make out like bandits, lol.

[srellim234]

The first thing they should do is declare who holds what stocks in their portfolios. No congressional member should be voting on bailing out any company that they have holdings in. Conflict of interest. You might not have anyone left to vote on this "bailout."

I'm sorry but we should take our lumps now economically for our ineptitude and greed. If it causes a severe recession or even a depression so be it. Learn from the mistakes and prevent it from happening again. No taxpayers' money to help anyone on Wall Street.

[DJButton]

I'm sorry but we should take our lumps now economically for our ineptitude and greed. If it causes a severe recession or even a depression so be it. Learn from the mistakes and prevent it from happening again. No taxpayers' money to help anyone on Wall Street.

Hear Hear! The words of congressman Paul, as qouted by Jesda, I whole heartedly agree with, but you are spote on with your reasoning. We, as a nation are responsible for letting our government get as much control as it has, unfortunatly the people I come across on a day to day basis are so brainwashed and quick to believe whatever the media flashes them though. I'm not sure if the whole country has been led to believe whatever they are told by the mass-media but I don't doubt that, judging by the path we've been traveling. If only more citizens would spend time really researching...

Thanks for that post Jesda, it's refreshing to see more fellow countrymen who are awake!

[S13_love]

No arguments from me on that.....

[marlin29311]

I recently heard that some Detroit auto makers are looking for $25 billion from the gov now...not mentioning any names...

[hsckris]

I'm generally very pro-small government

+

NICOnauts for Obama: Member #1

=????Doesn't add up.

[HashiriyaS14]

doesn't add up.

Yep, because NEITHER candidate is fiscally conservative, and thus I'm backing the guy who's with me on social views.

Obama is going to tax and spend, and generally enlarge the government.

McCain is going to spend and not tax, and while the government won't grow, the end effects will be the same as if it had. The deficit will enlarge and the dollar will continue to fall.

As I see it, if both available choices are going to be fiscally irresponsible, then at least I can go with the guy who will buy us some infrastructure, energy independence, and education advances with all that money.

When the GOP wakes up and realizes that trickle-down supply-side economics doesn't work without serious spending cuts, they can have my vote back, even if they don't change their social stances. Until then, they have managed to morph into a party I disagree with on BOTH fronts, as they are fiscally irresponsible AND socially authoritarian.

[audtatious]

What are your specific social stances?

[HashiriyaS14]

What are your specific social stances?

Pro ChoicePro Immigration ReformPro Stem Cell ResearchPro Gay Marriage (or, for that matter, adult-age polygamy)Pro Legalized Prostitution and GamblingPro Medical MarijuanaAgainst the teaching of creationismAgainst prohibiting PRIVATE prayer in schoolsAgainst media or entertainment censorship

Generally, I just support the right of an individual to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that does not harm other individuals. I even oppose anti-flag-burning amendments for the same reasons. I generally am against any attempt whatsoever to "legislate morality". I disagree with any attempt by the majority to impose its views on the minority. From a social standpoint, I'd be perfectly okay with the United States resembling The Netherlands.

We are not a Christian nation, or a Muslim nation, or a black nation, or a white nation, or the nation of any other once or future majority. We are a nation of individuals, and a nation that was founded on the fundamental principle of protecting the freedom of individuals so long as those freedoms do not harm other individuals.

I am also, it so happens, PRO-GUN, which is the only major social issue on which I diverge. I also tend to argue that it is nonsensical for the GOP to support individual liberties on the issue of firearms but oppose them on abortion and gay marriage. I have a great affection for pro-gun Democrats and pro-choice Republicans.

Obviously, Obama doesn't openly agree with ALL the stuff above, but it's a better match than McCain.

[audtatious]

1) Pro Choice: I'm fine with that2) Pro Immigration Reform: as in what, open boarders?3) Pro Stem Cell Research: I'm fine with that as long as the Gov is not footing the bill. 4) Pro Gay Marriage (or, for that matter, adult-age polygamy): I'm on the fence but against polygamy from a legal perspective5) Pro Legalized Prostitution and gamb|ing: For gamb|ing, against prostitution6) Pro Medical Marijuana: I'm fine with that7) Against the teaching of creationism: I'm on the fence. Evolution is a theory as well and I don't see the harm in at least touching on the religious aspects for kids to understand the difference8) Against prohibiting PRIVATE prayer in schools: Seems this only impacts Christians and Muslims9) Against media or entertainment censorship: I am all for it if as it relates to p0rn or vulgarity. Keep that after hours.

Generally, I just support the right of an individual to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that does not harm other individuals. I even oppose anti-flag-burning amendments for the same reasons. I generally am against any attempt whatsoever to "legislate morality". I disagree with any attempt by the majority to impose its views on the minority. From a social standpoint, I'd be perfectly okay with the United States resembling The Netherlands.

The problem is that "doing anything" has been shown to cost others "something". There is a line where your rights end and others begin. As far as morality, what is the benchmark of what is or is not moral?

[HashiriyaS14]

1) Pro Choice: I'm fine with that2) Pro Immigration Reform: as in what, open boarders?3) Pro Stem Cell Research: I'm fine with that as long as the Gov is not footing the bill. 4) Pro Gay Marriage (or, for that matter, adult-age polygamy): I'm on the fence but against polygamy from a legal perspective5) Pro Legalized Prostitution and gamb|ing: For gamb|ing, against prostitution6) Pro Medical Marijuana: I'm fine with that7) Against the teaching of creationism: I'm on the fence. Evolution is a theory as well and I don't see the harm in at least touching on the religious aspects for kids to understand the difference8) Against prohibiting PRIVATE prayer in schools: Seems this only impacts Christians and Muslims9) Against media or entertainment censorship: I am all for it if as it relates to p0rn or vulgarity. Keep that after hours.

The problem is that "doing anything" has been shown to cost others "something". There is a line where your rights end and others begin. As far as morality, what is the benchmark of what is or is not moral?

A.) I'm not sure how this evolved into a comparison of my social values versus yours, and I'm also not sure why it matters where we agree or disagree, but I'll proceed regardless.

B.) It's "borders". It's only "boarders" if we charge the Mexicans rent.

C.) I'd support government grants for stem cell research just as I'd support them for aerospace research. But I'll compromise, so long as the private sector can perform the research, it's all good. There's more than enough private sector motivation.

D.) Re: Creationism: The problem with teaching creationism is not that it isn't a valid theory. I, for the record, personally subscribe to the idea of intelligent design, although certainly not in the organized Christian sense. The problem is that how do we know what form of creationism to teach the kids? We can't very well teach the book of Genesis when there may be Hindu or Muslim kids in the class. If you can propose a solid way of arriving at a consensus that won't offend the parents of some minority-religion parent who pays property tax to fund public schools, then we'll talk. That's my ONLY objection, as I see that as representing an infringement upon the rights of that individual.

E.) How is the private prayer thing exclusionary? I'm not trying to debate, I think I really do just misunderstand your point. I'm just arguing that I support the establishment clause, that, in regards to religion, there should be no laws "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". School-led prayer I regard as an abomination for the reasons presented in point "D", but if a kid wants to bow and say grace before his school lunch, he should damned well be allowed to do so. If a Shinto or Buddhist kid wants to wear clothing or jewelry related to their own religion, they should likewise be permitted, et cetera. I can't imagine we disagree on this one, I think we're just misunderstanding one another.

F.) In regards to censorship, I'm certainly not proposing that we show titties on daytime basic cable, but I strongly oppose the idea of saying, for instance (i.e. Lieberman) that there are some things that absolutely positively cannot be depicted in, say, videogames, no matter of HOW they're rated. Rate things, make them age appropriate, use paid subscriptions, ID checking, whatever, but there shouldn't really be any limits to the stuff available to true adults. In particular, if you can make a movie or a book about "x", you should be able to make a videogame about it.

Show me where any of the above would somehow infringe upon the rights of other citizens beyond simply offending them. There is no protection against being offended in these United States. If you can cite some other material infraction inflicted upon another individual when someone has a gay marriage, an abortion, solicits a legal prostitute, or smokes marijuana in their own home, I'll be more than happy to discuss it and potentially revise my position. He who stops analyzing his own positions is intellectually dead.

[audtatious]

A.) I'm not sure how this evolved into a comparison of my social values versus yours, and I'm also not sure why it matters where we agree or disagree, but I'll proceed regardless.

Dunno, I was just curious

B.) It's "borders". It's only "boarders" if we charge the Mexicans rent.

OK now, let's not get into grammar. I'm multitasking....

C.) I'd support government grants for stem cell research just as I'd support them for aerospace research. But I'll compromise, so long as the private sector can perform the research, it's all good. There's more than enough private sector motivation.

The gov is giving money for stem cell research. They are just not giving any for embryonic stem cell research other than the strains they have released already.

D.) Re: Creationism: The problem with teaching creationism is not that it isn't a valid theory. I, for the record, personally subscribe to the idea of intelligent design, although certainly not in the organized Christian sense. The problem is that how do we know what form of creationism to teach the kids? We can't very well teach the book of Genesis when there may be Hindu or Muslim kids in the class. If you can propose a solid way of arriving at a consensus that won't offend the parents of some minority-religion parent who pays property tax to fund public schools, then we'll talk. That's my ONLY objection, as I see that as representing an infringement upon the rights of that individual.

Some people are going to be offended regardless. I was not talking about teaching Genesis as a whole but since kids are going to run into the religious aspect outside of school I don't see a problem with generic comparison either.

E.) How is the private prayer thing exclusionary? I'm not trying to debate, I think I really do just misunderstand your point. I'm just arguing that I support the establishment clause, that, in regards to religion, there should be no laws "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". School-led prayer I regard as an abomination for the reasons presented in point "D", but if a kid wants to bow and say grace before his school lunch, he should damned well be allowed to do so. If a Shinto or Buddhist kid wants to wear clothing or jewelry related to their own religion, they should likewise be permitted, et cetera. I can't imagine we disagree on this one, I think we're just misunderstanding one another.

I've been irritated with anti-christian sentiment vs pro-Muslim. If they offer those time frames to Christians or Buddhists, etc to pray as well I'm fine with it. Based on reports I see in the news that is not the case. I'm for fairness in the system. Realize I'm not anti-Muslim in the least, just against the PC movement as a whole.

F.) In regards to censorship, I'm certainly not proposing that we show titties on daytime basic cable, but I strongly oppose the idea of saying, for instance (i.e. Lieberman) that there are some things that absolutely positively cannot be depicted in, say, videogames, no matter of HOW they're rated. Rate things, make them age appropriate, use paid subscriptions, ID checking, whatever, but there shouldn't really be any limits to the stuff available to true adults. In particular, if you can make a movie or a book about "x", you should be able to make a videogame about it.

I agree to most of it. Of course, people have made books and movies concerning bestiality and pedophilia

some things just need to be censored.

Show me where any of the above would somehow infringe upon the rights of other citizens beyond simply offending them. There is no protection against being offended in these United States. If you can cite some other material infraction inflicted upon another individual when someone has a gay marriage, an abortion, solicits a legal prostitute, or smokes marijuana in their own home, I'll be more than happy to discuss it and potentially revise my position. He who stops analyzing his own positions is intellectually dead.

I don't have much issue with the above. Usually when someone states "I should be able to do anything" it is more drastic. I should be able to use heroin or skateboard off the empire state building or smoke pot on the job or drift in the streets or drive as fast as I want to or <insert stupid stuff here>.

I really don't see where the majority of Mac/Palin social agendas will impact you. RvW won't get overturned even with the majority of people being against abortion. Most accept that in this day and age it's a necessary evil until other solutions can be found (Hell, I'd support mandatory long-term birth control to kids that are in effect until they are 21 ). From a immigration perspective I hope they repeal the law allowing illegals kids who are born here to have citizenship as well.

If nothing has changed with Bush in office I don't see how you would think things would change with Mac/Palin in office either. While Palin comes across as a big bible thumper she has shown no initiative to force those viewpoints while Gov in Alaska nor would I expect her to do it in the White House.

[HashiriyaS14]

If nothing has changed with Bush in office

I won't continue to argue the ins and outs of every point, but I will say that I believe this to be patently untrue. The balance of the Supreme Court has changed materially due to Bush's tenure, and a continued GOP presence in the White House will change it further, conceivably to a 7-2 or 8-1 GOP majority. I do NOT, for the record, put it past an 8-2 GOP court majority to attempt to overturn RvW or rule on gay marriage in some conservative activist fashion. Alito and Scalia have shown by their rulings that they aren't afraid to be strictly partisan.

[audtatious]

When the country is continually spent into oblivion we won't care one way or another about RvW nor who is on the Supreme Court. I don't see Obama doing crap to press our Gov to be fiscally conservative. I see McCain/Palin as being able to at least fight a foothold in.

[Eikon]

In the long run, hopefully, the value of tens of millions of American mortgages is not zero, and thus unlike when they simply hand over funds in a true bailout, the US government will be left holding a pool of debt that is actually worth something. It's an acquisition, not a bailout. It would seem that the dilution of the dollar required to engineer this acquisition will indeed raise inflation, but inflation was rising at a pretty scary clip as-is. Sooner or later, you've got to innoculate the financial institutions, publicly or privately, and get all those loans off their balance sheets. The government is in the rare position to be able to do this without taking a bath on it, and they stand a real chance of making a profit.

At least on the AIG "bailout", it would be a no-brainer to borrow money rather than dilute the dollar, even if we had to pay 6% on them, the government is getting near a 12% pref. A 6% spread is pretty thick indeed.

I'm generally very pro-small government, but in this case, it seems like such a good deal for the taxpayers that I'm hesitant to harp on it too heavily. It's not often that we, the taxpayers, get to pool together and buy up tons of assets near the bottom of a market. We might make out like bandits, lol.

To get us back on track...

This is the most intelligent post I've read on NICO in a long long time. On the ball!!! Good stuff Hash!

[Sentientbydesign]

Matt, Chris,

Split thread please!

I like both topics, but they don't belong in the same thread. Feel free to delete my request too.

[Jesda]

Favoring small government and voting for Obama is the most logically damaged thing a voter could possibly do.

Social issues are distractions. The war on drugs may be the most important one, as it costs the most money to enforce. The rest are there to tug at the heart strings of people who fail to realize that the health of the economy matters more than whether Dan and Steve get a marriage license. I am, by classical definition, a social liberal. But I'm also wise enough to know that the government's interference in our personal lives is less important than the government's impact on the economy.

So the only difference between Obama and McCain is that Obama wants to tax hard-working and successful Americans? Great, then by voting for Barack Obama you have achieved nothing.

I might see the logic if your agenda is to get out of the war in Iraq or punish the GOP, but favoring small government while voting for Obama is contradictory at best.

I am very annoyed with the GOP. It has not earned my vote, but in no way whatsoever has Barack Obama.

[audtatious]

I might see the logic if your agenda is to get out of the war in Iraq or punish the GOP, but favoring small government while voting for Obama is contradictory at best.

I am very annoyed with the GOP. It has not earned my vote, but in no way whatsoever has Barack Obama.

I'm annoyed with the GOP for having liberal "big spending" syndrome. They need to take care of the basics or they all need to GTFO (all of them).